Really?

Hitler & National Socialism: . . . . It's defining feature was public ownership of the means of production, and it's no coincidence that the world's greatest capitalists were sent to the death camps.

I'd be interested and surprised to see any supporting data for the above. Certainly Jewish capitalists didn't fare well under the Nazis. Fritz Thyssen (not a Jew) famously split from the Nazi party over the issue of mob violence after he initially provided active support. But I'd be interested in knowing what notable capitalists were sent to death camps for anything but being Jewish. The owners of Krupp and Farben did quite well under Hitler and several dozen directors of Farber were tried for war crimes. Yes, it was a war economy, cooperation was required, etc., but it benefitted the large industrialists immensely. When you look at how the State championed some cartels, and by extension eliminated others, it's tempting to reflect on how we have learned that government regulation is necessary to protect consumers from the natural tendency of capitalist enterprises to consolidate and drive out competition. Here's an excerpt from History.com which describes the active support of the state for privately owned industries in Nazi Germany (boldface mine).

"The trade associations of business owners and industrialists of the Weimar Republic were transformed into organs of state control. Membership by employers was compulsory. Supervision of these associations was vested in the ministry of national economy, which had the power to recognize trade organizations as the sole representatives of their respective branches of industry, to organize new associations, dissolve or merge existing ones, and appoint and recall the leaders of all the associations. Through the exercise of these powers and also as specifically empowered by law, the ministry of economy greatly expanded existing cartels and cartelized entire industries. The banks were similarly “coordinated.” Private property rights were preserved, and previously nationalized enterprises were “reprivatized,” that is, returned to private ownership, but all owners were subject to rigid state controls. By all of these and related means the Hitler regime eliminated competition. Ultimately the “new order” was dominated in an economic sense by four banks and a relatively small number of huge conglomerates, including the vast munitions and steel manufacturing empire of the Krupp family and the notorious Interessengemeinschaft Farbenindustrie, known as I. G. Farben, which produced dyes, synthetic rubber, oil, and other products and participated in or dominated almost 400 enterprises."

I'd be interested and surprised to see any supporting data for the above. Certainly Jewish capitalists didn't fare well under the Nazis. Fritz Thyssen (not a Jew) famously split from the Nazi party over the issue of mob violence after he initially provided active support. But I'd be interested in knowing what notable capitalists were sent to death camps for anything but being Jewish. The owners of Krupp and Farben did quite well under Hitler and several dozen directors of Farber were tried for war crimes. Yes, it was a war economy, cooperation was required, etc., but it benefitted the large industrialists immensely. When you look at how the State championed some cartels, and by extension eliminated others, it's tempting to reflect on how we have learned that government regulation is necessary to protect consumers from the natural tendency of capitalist enterprises to consolidate and drive out competition. Here's an excerpt from History.com which describes the active support of the state for privately owned industries in Nazi Germany (boldface mine).

"The trade associations of business owners and industrialists of the Weimar Republic were transformed into organs of state control. Membership by employers was compulsory. Supervision of these associations was vested in the ministry of national economy, which had the power to recognize trade organizations as the sole representatives of their respective branches of industry, to organize new associations, dissolve or merge existing ones, and appoint and recall the leaders of all the associations. Through the exercise of these powers and also as specifically empowered by law, the ministry of economy greatly expanded existing cartels and cartelized entire industries. The banks were similarly “coordinated.” Private property rights were preserved, and previously nationalized enterprises were “reprivatized,” that is, returned to private ownership, but all owners were subject to rigid state controls. By all of these and related means the Hitler regime eliminated competition. Ultimately the “new order” was dominated in an economic sense by four banks and a relatively small number of huge conglomerates, including the vast munitions and steel manufacturing empire of the Krupp family and the notorious Interessengemeinschaft Farbenindustrie, known as I. G. Farben, which produced dyes, synthetic rubber, oil, and other products and participated in or dominated almost 400 enterprises."

I'd be interested and surprised to see any supporting data for the above. Certainly Jewish capitalists didn't fare well under the Nazis. Fritz Thyssen (not a Jew) famously split from the Nazi party over the issue of mob violence after he initially provided active support. But I'd be interested in knowing what notable capitalists were sent to death camps for anything but being Jewish.

Ah, now we have a chicken-or-egg problem. Why did Hitler hate the Jews? It certainly wasn't over theology. A reading of Nazi rhetoric tells you that they blamed Jewish capitalists for their depression, and for economic exploitation of the Deutscherarbeitern. National Socialism would make the Aryan nation supreme, other nations subservient, and groups they considered parasitic, like the Jews, extinct.

Originally Posted by Diver

The owners of Krupp and Farben did quite well under Hitler and several dozen directors of Farber were tried for war crimes. Yes, it was a war economy, cooperation was required, etc., but it benefitted the large industrialists immensely. When you look at how the State championed some cartels, and by extension eliminated others, it's tempting to reflect on how we have learned that government regulation is necessary to protect consumers from the natural tendency of capitalist enterprises to consolidate and drive out competition. Here's an excerpt from History.com which describes the active support of the state for privately owned industries in Nazi Germany (boldface mine).

I hear what you are saying, but that is not capitalism, just because people became wealthy. Hugo Chavez is a billionaire, so are the Castros, and Communist Chinese industrialists have become fabulously wealthy. All under the rubric of socialism.

In a true, free-market capitalist system anyone can buy or sell under the same conditions and the government doesn't support anyone in particular. If some Bavarian pretzel baker decided he wanted to convert his equipment and go into competition with Farben, that would not have been permitted. And if the guys at Krupp said "You know Adolf, this weapons business isn't working out so well for us, we could make more money making toys. You sign some peace treaties, and check out this new G.I. Josef action figure we have, pretty cool, no?-" that wouldn't have worked either. That would be capitalism. Real capitalists wouldn't have wanted anything to do with Hitler. Look how quickly Germany became a major economic powerhouse once they took up pacifism.

What you are describing is nothing more than a correct definition of socialism. Centrally planned economy, doomed to failure because it disregards the instincts and desires of the common man in deference to the vain ambitions of rulers.

I hear what you are saying, but that is not capitalism, just because people became wealthy.
What you are describing is nothing more than a correct definition of socialism. Centrally planned economy, doomed to failure because it disregards the instincts and desires of the common man in deference to the vain ambitions of rulers.

Thyssen, Krupps, Farben, etc. were all successful, privately held enterprises long before Hitler showed up. His economic ministers were simply smart enough to utilize that productive base. I don't know if this is accurate, but there's a quote floating around in which Hitler supposedly said "why nationalize industry when you can nationalize the people?"

But I think we simply view social economic systems differently. My understanding is the bedrock of capitalism is the right to private property, the right to own and control large amounts of capital. That's what the bourgeois democratic revolutions (like ours) established as an advance over feudalism where the church and nobility retained the right to own property and capital. Socialism as an economic system, similarly expands ownership and establishes workers ownership of the major capital producing enterprises (public vs. private ownership and control) and the corresponding capital. In a large economy, small enterprises can be left in private hands until they become large engough to have a significant social and financial impact on society at which time they would be nationalized and fair compensation paid to the entrepeneur (ESOP actualized). The roll of the state as an administrative vehicle for the workers organzations has been the challenge for socialism historically and is now irrelevant given world conditions. You can have extremely restricted or freely ranging individual liberties in either system. The fundamental issue is who owns and controls the main productive enterprises and the value they generate, not how social services are administered.

I think a lot of the confusion in this country stems from developments in Social Democratic parties in Europe in the lead up to and aftermath of WWII. Those parties did not advocate a radical shift to socialist property relations but rather a tolerance of capitalism with a robust social services network paid for by taxes on the corporations. The Labor Party in England is a social democratic party which espounsed this "Third Way" even under Tony Blair. Some European social democratic governments have bailed out failing private businesses and returned them to private ownership after they're stablized. In the 1980's France nationalized several industries, but soon returned to the "free market." My point is these countries may have robust social services, but that doesn't constitute socialist property relations. If you want to look at social services as the defining feature, then you have so say we are a socialist country because we have Medicare or Social Security.

Anyway, as evidenced by the video Metronome posted, it's an uphill battle to expect classic economics to penetrate this population. It's actually preferable to the power structure that ignorance prevail. Remember, we have presidents and congressmen who aren't willing or able to distinguish between the appropraite rolls of religious metaphor and scientific theory, insisting they be given equal weight in educating children about the physical nature of this planet. Perhaps this leads the thread to another variant of blackjack known as Born Again Blackjack. In this one, you ignore basic strategy, count rosary beads, and pray that whatever you do will produce a winning hand. Mmmm, I think I've seen some of that already.

In a true, free-market capitalist system anyone can buy or sell under the same conditions and the government doesn't support anyone in particular. If some Bavarian pretzel baker decided he wanted to convert his equipment and go into competition with Farben, that would not have been permitted. And if the guys at Krupp said "You know Adolf, this weapons business isn't working out so well for us, we could make more money making toys. You sign some peace treaties, and check out this new G.I. Josef action figure we have, pretty cool, no?-" that wouldn't have worked either. That would be capitalism. Real capitalists wouldn't have wanted anything to do with Hitler. Look how quickly Germany became a major economic powerhouse once they took up pacifism.

What you are describing is nothing more than a correct definition of socialism. Centrally planned economy, doomed to failure because it disregards the instincts and desires of the common man in deference to the vain ambitions of rulers.

You are describing war-time Germany. War-time America sounds similar. Automobile production was banned. Even Ford's plants were converted to making bombers, 'though Ford was pro-Hitler. Natural resources were allotted by the gov't. You couldn't buy aluminum on the "free-market" (which was why Hughes made a plane out of wood.) Rationing was the norm. Tires, cars, typewriters, sugar, gasoline, bicycles, fuel oil, coffee, stoves, shoes, meat, lard, shortening and oils, cheese, butter, margarine, processed foods, dried fruits, canned milk, firewood and coal, jams, jellies and fruit butter were all rationed (that from WP). And private property was seized base on ethnicity (citizens as little as 1/16th Japanese or infant orphans with "one drop" of Japanese blood. We all know how dangerous an infant can be.)

My motto: "I hate to support casinos. But, I hate worse to libel anyone at anytime."

History repeats!

We are doomed to repeat history because we fail to recognize the mistakes that were made in the past. It confounds anyone who has studied history why we refuse to learn from the past and try something different. We are going through a period of history that the end results are already known. We just don't know how bad it's going to get before it gets better.

We are doomed to repeat history because we fail to recognize the mistakes that were made in the past. It confounds anyone who has studied history why we refuse to learn from the past and try something different. We are going through a period of history that the end results are already known. We just don't know how bad it's going to get before it gets better.

To me, the most distressing thing is the increasing difficulty of having an informed debate or discussion on vital issues. It seems at one time or another we have at play:
1. ignorance or lack of factual information; incl. no respect for facts as facts
2. deliberate misrepresentation or distortion of information
3. no respect for opposing views; incl. intentional belittling
4. appeal to mean-spirited impulses; incl. biggotry, violence

I can actually respect the exercise of #1 in the sense of "they don't know any better." That can be surrmounted with someone who is basically intelligent and well-intended. But the rest of them are inexcusable and despicable and represent the worst in human nature. (I appreciate a roll for good-natured teasing, even sarcasm at times, but it is important to make sure "innocent bystanders" are aware of the context in order to avoid confusion otherwise you're contributing to the problem.)

To me, the most distressing thing is the increasing difficulty of having an informed debate or discussion on vital issues. It seems at one time or another we have at play:
1. ignorance or lack of factual information; incl. no respect for facts as facts
2. deliberate misrepresentation or distortion of information
3. no respect for opposing views; incl. intentional belittling
4. appeal to mean-spirited impulses; incl. biggotry, violence

I can actually respect the exercise of #1 in the sense of "they don't know any better." That can be surrmounted with someone who is basically intelligent and well-intended. But the rest of them are inexcusable and despicable and represent the worst in human nature. (I appreciate a roll for good-natured teasing, even sarcasm at times, but it is important to make sure "innocent bystanders" are aware of the context in order to avoid confusion otherwise you're contributing to the problem.)

I can see that all sides of the issue might believe the opposition to be guilty of all four points that you mention.

Aslan 11/1/90 - 6/15/10 Stormy 1/22/95 -8/23/10
“There are not one hundred people in the United States who hate The Catholic Church,
but there are millions who hate what they wrongly perceive the Catholic Church to be.” Bishop Fulton J. Sheen

Now my post right here could be an example of what you are talking about because as you see, I've deleted your context and left the bare bones of just your four points. Your points alone struck me as the agenda in a nutshell of the fundamentalist christian lobby. This could be called: Unintentional point-scoring?

Attached Images

Last edited by Katweezel; February 7th, 2010 at 05:08 PM.
Reason: Pat wanted his mugshot on here again